Chapter XLVII: {william IV. 1836—1837} (1)

_Meeting of Parliament..... Consideration of the State of
Ireland..... Irish Municipal Corporations Bill.....
Question of Establishing a System of Poor-Law in
Ireland..... Irish Tithe Question..... Question of Church-
Rates..... The Church of Scotland..... Notices of Motions
for Constitutional Changes..... Operation of the New Poor-
Laws..... The Affairs of Canada..... State of the Banking
System, &c. Consideration of the Foreign Policy of
England under the Whig Administration..... Motion on the
State of the Nation..... Illness and Death of the King.....
Remarks on his Reign, Character, &c._

MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

{A.D. 1837}

Parliament reassembled on the 31st of January. The session was opened by commission; and the speech of the commissioners referred to the contests in Spain, and the recent events in Portugal. The speech also called the attention of both houses to the state of Canada, stating that the reports of the commissioners appointed to inquire into which, would be laid before them. It further recommended to their serious deliberation the provisions which would be submitted to them for the improvement of the law and the administration of justice, and conveyed his majesty’s desire that they should consult upon such further measures as might give increased stability to the established church. The revenues, moreover, formed a subject of congratulation in the speech, and an early renewal of inquiries into the operation of the act permitting the establishment of joint-stock banks. The concluding topic of the speech was Ireland; such measures as might improve the condition of that country were recommended to be adopted. The present constitution of the municipal corporations of that country, the collection of tithes, and the establishment of some legal provision for the poor were especially noticed as subjects worthy of their attention.

The address in the lords was moved by the Earl of Fingal, and seconded by Lord Suffield. In the commons the address was moved by Mr. Sandford, and seconded by Mr. Stuart Villiers. The debate that followed was enlivened by Mr. Roebuck, who made a violent assault on the whole system of ministerial policy. Sir Robert Peel referred to those parts of the speech relating to the affairs of Spain and Portugal. His remarks with reference to Spain were confined to that passage in the address which expressed the satisfaction of the house that his majesty’s co-operating force had rendered useful assistance to her Catholic majesty. Whatever opinion he might hold on the policy of the quadruple alliance, he had always considered it our duty to fulfil the treaty so long as we stood pledged to it. By that treaty we stipulated to give the assistance of a naval force to the arms of the queen of Spain; and he supported the address on the understanding that the aid we had given had been strictly of that character. The distinction was important. The grant of a military force might have supposed an interference with the civil dissensions and party conflicts of Spain. Might not the precedent be equally adopted by despotic governments claiming a right to support absolute principles among their neighbours? where then would be the peace of Europe? The next paragraph in the address illustrated the danger of interfering in the civil affairs of other countries. We express our regret that “events in Portugal have occurred which, for a time, threaten to disturb the internal peace of the country.” These events are but the corollary of the revolution in that country in 1834, and which was then called in the speech from the throne “a happy result.” A consequence of this “happy result” is that we have now six sail of the line in the Tagus. For what purpose? To defend the queen of that country from an attack on the part of her own subjects; and to protect the lives and property of the English residing there from the danger with which they are threatened. In reply, Lord Palmerston remarked, that, “when we stated that the effect of the treaty in 1834 was to put an end to the civil war in Portugal, we did not take upon ourselves the responsibility of the government of that kingdom in all future times, or undertake that it should be henceforth free from the civil disturbances to which every country was liable.” This might be true; but if the last revolution in Portugal was the result of the one which we had been instrumental in bringing about, then we were in no slight degree responsible for its occurrence.

CONSIDERATION OF THE STATE OF IRELAND.

Ireland was still the cardinal point of our domestic politics. At this time, in fact, Irish politics had acquired more importance than ever. The state of that country was brought before parliament this session, in a petition from the Protestants, setting forth the dangers by which they were surrounded from the effects of the agitation which everywhere prevailed. This petition was presented to the lords by the Marquis of Downshire on the 28th of April, and it was the occasion of an interesting debate on the state of Ireland. The topics insisted on, however, were for the most part identical with those which had for a series of years been repeatedly adduced in the commons, so that a repetition of them is unnecessary. The debate unfolded one great fact: namely, that the Protestant party were not behindhand with the Catholics in the vigour and perseverance of their agitation.

Government lost no time in bringing the politics of Ireland before parliament. On the 7th of April Lord John Russell moved for leave to bring in a bill for the amendment of the Irish municipal corporations. The bill differed from that of the last year on one material point only. By the former measure the town-councils were not allowed to interfere in the appointment of sheriffs, which was vested in the crown; but they were now authorised to nominate or suggest a certain number of persons for that office; the power of selection, rejection, and appointment being given to the lord-lieutenant. Sir John Hobhouse made an intimation, that the fate of this measure would decide that of the cabinet; he asked of the party opposite, if they succeeded in throwing out this bill and so coming into office, upon what principle they hoped to govern Ireland? Was it by Orange, neckerchiefs and acclamations that they expected to do so? They ought to be prepared to give a decided answer to the question. Sir Robert Peel said, that he doubted the right of any one to catechise his party on the results of a contingency. The motion, which was merely for leave to bring in the bill, was not opposed, and the two parties had therefore no opportunity of making trial of their strength on a division.

The order of the day was read for going into committee on the reform of municipal corporations on the 20th of February. Lord Francis Egerton moved an instruction similar to that which he had brought forward in the last session, to the effect that the committee be empowered to make provisions for the abolition of corporations in Ireland, and for such arrangements as might be necessary on their abolition for securing the efficient and impartial administration of justice, and the peace and good government of Ireland. A long discussion ensued and was adjourned. On the following day Mr. Serjeant Jackson delivered a long speech, which was chiefly directed against the government of Lord Mulgrave. Mr. Vesey followed in the same track. The bill was supported, on the other hand, by Mr. E. L. Bulwer, Lord Howick, and Mr. Roebuck. The latter asked Sir Robert Peel this plain question:—“Can he pretend to carry on the government of Ireland on entirely different principles from those of Great Britain? Does he believe that, at this period of man’s history, and by the side of the most enlightened nation of the earth, doctrines of government suited for the meridian of St. Petersburg can be carried into actual practice? In a word, Does he believe that the system of Protestant supremacy can be continued in Ireland without civil war?” On the third night of the debate, Sir James Graham delivered a powerful speech in support of Lord Francis Egerton’s amendment. Mr. Shiel followed, in a speech which was more personal than argumentative. Sir Robert Peel deprecated this mode of conducting the debate. He had been reproached, he continued, by Lord Howick for not having earlier seen the necessity of yielding to the Catholic claims. Would the noble lord ask of his noble colleague of the foreign department, why he was not an earlier convert than he had proved to reform? Would he put the same question to the head of the present administration? If it were blindness in him not to foresee in 1825 the necessity of concession to the Catholics, was not the blindness of Lord Melbourne as great when, in 1826, he even opposed the transfer of representatives from Penryn to Manchester? Mr. O’Connell followed, urging his usual topics—the long misgovernment of Ireland, and the necessity of the repeal of the union as her only chance of obtaining justice. After a reply from Lord John Russell, the house divided; when Lord Francis Egerton’s amendment was negatived by a majority of three hundred and twenty-two against two hundred and forty-two.

Little discussion took place on the bill when in committee. The third reading was moved on the 10th of April, when Mr. Goulburn opposed the measure as pregnant with danger to the church, and tending by its renewed agitation to place the two houses of parliament in an undesirable situation. Another long debate ensued, in which the bill was defended by Colonel Thompson, Lords Morpeth and John Russell, and Messrs. Bulwer, Charles Villiers, and O’Connell; and opposed by Lord Stanley, Sir James Graham, and Sir Robert Peel. The debate lasted two nights; and on a division the bill was carried by a majority of three hundred and two against two hundred and forty-seven.

The bill was introduced to the house of peers by Lord Melbourne on the 13th of April; and the second reading was fixed for the 25th of the same month. On its introduction the Duke of Wellington gave no opinion on the subject of the bill, but contented himself with observing, that it was only one of the three measures relating to Ireland which had been recommended to the consideration of the house in the speech from the throne. He added, that, as he thought it desirable before the house decided on the present measure it should have the other two before them, he hoped the noble viscount would appoint a more distant day for its consideration. Lord Melbourne objected to this, stating at the same time that he could not see any necessary connexion between the three measures. In moving its second reading, Lord Melbourne dwelt at great length upon the good effects which had already resulted from the grant of a similar boon to England. On these grounds he called upon the house to accede to the measure. It was only a little to give, but a great deal to withhold. The Duke of Wellington said, that he would agree to the second reading of the bill, on the principle that the existing corporations ought not to be continued. He would not, however, pledge himself to consent to the present measure, to various details of which he had strong objections. He would endeavour to remove these in committee; in the meanwhile he could not but express his surprise that Lord Melbourne should have again brought forward such a measure. Lord Lyndhurst expressed similar sentiments. In reference to the surprise expressed by the Duke of Wellington that the bill should have been reintroduced, Lord Melbourne said the case was not a singular one; and he reminded the duke that he had introduced and carried a measure to which he had been opposed. Lord Brougham regretted that, from the tone of the speeches of the Duke of Wellington, he was led to believe that they would only throw away some five or six weeks of their time in unprofitable discussions on the subject, and be left at the end of this session where they were at the close of the last. This proved to be the true interpretation of those speeches. On the 5th of May, when the order of the day was read for the house to resolve itself into committee on the bill, the Duke of Wellington rose, and moved to defer the committal till the 9th of June. His reason for asking this delay was, that he was anxious to see the result of the deliberations of the other house of parliament on the pending measures of Irish tithe and Irish poor-law. Lord Melbourne objected to the proposed postponement as inconvenient in itself, and dangerous in the motive on which it was grounded. There was no connexion between the church and corporation bills; and if the house of commons should follow the example of the lords, and refuse to consider one set of bills until the lords had passed another to their satisfaction, he apprehended their lordships would not have the best of the struggle. As for the appropriation clause, he denied, as his grace had intimated, that it had been abandoned; it existed in the new bill as strongly as in the former one. The Duke of Wellington replied, that though he objected to much of the present measure, he was not adverse to the establishment, under certain circumstances, of local jurisdictions in Ireland. The Earl of Wicklow and Lord Fitzgerald made yet ampler concessions than his grace; and the Marquis of Lansdowne argued on this, that they assented to the principles of the bill; and that, therefore, no further delay should take place in its progress. Lord Brougham said that he drew no happy augury of the fate of the bill from the very significant speech of the Duke of Wellington. He would not say any sinister motive lurked in his proposition for delay; but if he was averse to the present measure, as he appeared to be, why did he not throw it out altogether? It was very well to talk of amendments; but their lordships would so alter the bill, that the man who drew it would not know it again. Although the different sections under the duke’s command might move by different routes, they would all meet in the end. On a division the motion for postponement was carried by a majority of one hundred and ninety-two against one hundred and fifteen.

Although the postponement decided on was for more than one month, there appeared to be little probability that either the tithe or the poor-rate bill would be before the lords by the assigned period for resuming the municipal corporations bill. Under these circumstances, when the 9th of June arrived, Lord Lyndhurst rose to move a further postponement of the bill till the 3rd of July next. His lordship took occasion again to state his objections to the measure. Lord Melbourne opposed the further postponement of the bill; but on a division the motion was carried by a majority of two hundred and five against one hundred and nineteen.

QUESTION OF ESTABLISHING A SYSTEM OF POOR-LAWS IN IRELAND.

A board of commissioners had been for some time busied with the consideration of a system of poor-laws in Ireland, and in the last session a report containing the result of their inquiries was laid before parliament. This report, however, was not satisfactory to government. They thought it desirable that some inquiry should be made as to how far it might be practicable to introduce into Ireland a system of relief based upon the principles of the new English poor-law. For this purpose, Mr. Nicholls, one of the commissioners, was sent to Ireland to prosecute the matter by personal investigation. The report of Mr. Nicholls was very able, and on it government grounded the measure which they intended to bring forward on the subject. This measure was introduced in the commons by Lord John Russell on the 13th of February. In introducing it, his lordship called the attention of the house to that part of the king’s speech at the opening of the session, in which the establishment of some legal provision for the poor was recommended. At the same time he laid on the table of the house a copy of Mr. Nicholl’s report upon the subject. In his speech, his lordship first dwelt upon the benefits derivable to a country from a well-administered system of poor-laws; upon its tendency to preserve peace, prevent vagrancy, diminish crime, and establish harmony among all classes of society. Having dwelt on this subject at length, Lord John Russell then stated the leading provisions of the bill as recommended by the commissioner. With respect to the expense of the system, he said, it had been calculated that the whole average charge for each person in the English workhouses, including lodging, fuel, clothing, and diet, was one shilling and sixpence per week. If, therefore, we take one hundred union houses, each containing eight hundred inmates, and suppose them all fully occupied, the annual expense for the whole would be £312,000.

In order to understand the nature of the bill brought in by Lord John Russell, however, it is necessary to give a brief extract of the report made by Mr. Nicholls. He stated that he found the people almost universally favourable to the introduction of a poor-law. But with respect to the question of how far the introduction of the English poor-law was practicable in Ireland, two difficulties suggested themselves—first, whether the workhouse system could be relied on as a test of destitution in Ireland; and secondly, whether the means and machinery existed there for the formation of unions as in England. The great principle of the workhouse system is, that the support which is afforded at the public charge there should be less desirable than that to be obtained by independent exertion. It would be impossible to make the lodging, clothing, and diet of the inmates of an Irish workhouse inferior to those of the Irish peasantry, and therefore this security would not be found for the efficiency of the workhouse-test. On the other hand, it is to be remembered that the Irish are naturally or by habit a migratory people, fond of change, full of hope, and eager for experiment. They had never been tied down to one limited settlement, and consequently confinement of any kind would be irksome, and therefore the test of the workhouse is likely to prove fully as efficient in Ireland as in England. With respect to the’ supply of local machinery for the execution of the law, Mr. Nicholls considered that by making the unions sufficiently large, there would be no difficulty of obtaining boards of guardians of competent intelligence and activity. These might, he said, be elected by the contributors to the county cess; but Mr. Nicholls thought that, in the first instance, large general powers should be vested in some competent authority to control and direct the proceedings of the board of guardians, and, where necessary, to supersede their functions altogether. He further proposed, that the same central authority should be empowered to dispense with the election of the first board of guardians, and to appoint such persons as it should think proper to act in their stead. It was further proposed, that the number of magistrates acting officially as guardians should not exceed one-third of the elected members of the board; and that no clergyman or minister of any denomination should be eligible to act as ex-officio guardian. The enactment of a provision for the destitute at the common charge, would give the community a right to interfere with the proceedings of individuals, so as to prevent the spread of destitution, and enable it to guard itself from loss and damage by the negligence or obstinacy of any of its members. With this view, it was recommended that the central authority should appoint, or empower the board of guardians to appoint, one or more wardens or head-boroughs for every parish, who might superintend the affairs of the district. Assuming the general practicability and expediency of establishing a system of poor-law in Ireland on principles the same with those of the English law, Mr. Nicholls proceeded to consider the details of its application in that country. It was proposed that all relief out of the workhouse should be absolutely refused. Another point to be insisted upon, was, that no individual of a family should be admitted unless all its members entered the house. All relief was to be given by the orders and direction of the central authority. With respect to the formation and regulation of the local machinery, the report recommended that, as in England, the appointment of guardians should be vested in the ratepayers and owners of property in the union. A scale was proposed, by which the number of votes possessed by an individual rate-payer might be raised from one to five, as his rating increased from five pounds to two hundred. The commissioners had proposed that the owner should pay two-thirds of the rate, and that the remainder should fall on the tenant: Mr. Nicholls thought that it would be better to divide the charge equally between the two parties. It was not recommended to establish a parochial settlement in Ireland, as the habits of the people were migratory: if a law settlement should be established, it would be a union of settlement, making the limits of the union the boundary. The simpler the conditions on which this settlement was made to depend, it would be the better. They might, it was stated, be limited to two—birth, and actual residence for a term of years; but, on the whole, it would be better to dispense with settlement altogether. One great object in the establishment of a legal relief for the destitute would be the right it afforded to take measures for the suppression of mendicancy. The present state of Ireland, and the feelings and habits of the people, threw considerable difficulty in the way of an immediate enforcement of such a prohibition. The best method, it was stated, would probably be to enact a general prohibition, and to cast upon the central authority the responsibility of bringing the act into operation in the several unions, as the workhouses became fitted for the reception of inmates. With respect to emigration, Mr. Nicholls did not think it should be looked to as an ordinary resource; the necessity for its adoption would be regarded as an indication of disease, which it would be better to prevent than thus to relieve. The source, however, would be one which must be employed as a means of relief whenever any population became excessive in any district, and no opening for migration to other districts could be found. In the conclusion of his report, Mr. Nicholls considered the nature and appointment of the central authority upon which the whole administration of the new system would depend. He was in favour of its being carried into effect by the existing English board, inasmuch as the object being to carry the English system into Ireland, it could only be done by persons practically conversant with its administration.

Such were the principles on which the measure introduced by Lord John Russell was founded. On its introduction, Irish members of all parties expressed their satisfaction with it. Mr. O’Connell, however, though he did not oppose it, expressed himself less sanguine as to its beneficial results. The hundred workhouses which it was proposed to erect would afford shelter and relief to eighty thousand persons in Ireland only; and he asked, what proportion that bore to the mass of destitution in Ireland? He objected also to the proposed gradual introduction of the measure. They would thereby create a state of transition, during which neither relief nor charity would be afforded to the suffering population of the country. He disapproved, also, of that part of the plan which confined relief and employment to the workhouses. There was no part of Ireland, he said, which might not be made ten times more productive than it was, and yet it was proposed to feed men in idleness in a workhouse. The system of workhouses acted well in England, where a sort of slave labour was adopted in them, to force the idle to seek employment elsewhere; but what could be expected from it in Ireland where men worked for twopence per day? Many expected that a poor-rate in Ireland would prevent the influx of Irish labourers into England; there could not be a greater mistake: unmarried men would still go to England; and so would the married, leaving their families to be maintained in the workhouse. The experiment, he saw, must be made; and, notwithstanding his objections, he would certainly give every aid in working out its details. Mr. O’Connell urged the necessity of extensive emigration on the consideration of government; but Sir Robert Peel said that he was not sanguine as to any benefits to be derived therefrom. The long sea-voyage would always stand in the way of its adoption to any extent. As to public works, to vote money merely to employ people, that would only aggravate existing evils by interfering with the natural demand for labour. Sir Robert Peel, however, was disposed cordially to support the measure in its general objects; as was also Lord Stanley.

The second reading of the bill did not take place till the end of April. The interval seems to have confirmed Mr. O’Connell in his hostility to the measure. It was not his intention directly to oppose it—some measure of the kind was inevitable; but his deliberate judgment was, that it would aggravate, instead of mitigate, the existing evils of the Irish peasantry. Those evils he ascribed to English misgovernment: the distinct and direct object of the penal laws was to enforce ignorance and poverty by act of parliament. For a century, the Irish had had laws requiring the people to be ignorant, and punishing them for being industrious. And what, he asked, were the natural consequences of this legislation? He entered into a variety of statistical details to prove that, with a less fertile soil, the quantity of agricultural produce raised in England was as four to one compared with that of Ireland; though, according to the number of acres under cultivation, it ought not to exceed two to one. He then proceeded to read numerous extracts from the reports of the commissioners, descriptive of the extreme misery of the Irish peasantry. He described men as lying in bed for want of food; turning thieves in order to be sent to jail; lying on rotten straw in mud cabins, with scarcely any covering; feeding on unripe potatoes and yellow weed, and feigning sickness, in order to get into hospitals. He continued:—“This is the condition of a country blest by nature with fertility, but barren from the want of cultivation, and whose inhabitants stalk through the land enduring the extremity of misery and want. Did we govern ourselves? Who did this? You, Englishmen!—I say, you did it? It is the result of your policy and domination!” With respect to the bill before the house, Mr. O’Connell ridiculed the proposition of relieving the destitution of 2,300,000 persons by building poor-houses to shelter eighty thousand at the expense of £312,000 a year. The charities in Dublin alone amounted to half that sum, and the farmers gave away in kind from a million to a million and a half yearly. As for tranquillizing the country, Mr. O’Connell said that the bill would not have any such effect. On the contrary, as all relief was to be given in the workhouse, every man who was refused would have a pretext for prædial resistance. The man refused would be the very man to resent the refusal; he would go to others and induce them to adopt his quarrel, and perhaps to avenge what he would consider to be his wrong. In conclusion, Mr. O’Connell admitted that he was opposed to a law of settlement, and also to a labour-rate: he thought emigration should be tried on a large scale; and he was still an advocate for a tax on absentees. However much he disapproved of the bill, he would not vote against it: he had not moral courage enough to resist a poor-law altogether. A long and angry debate ensued, which issued in nothing practical.

The only point in the measure in which any serious opposition was raised, respected the law of settlement. On the 12th of May, when the order of the day was read for the house to go into committee on the bill, Mr. Lucas moved,—“That it be an instruction to the committee to introduce a provision for settlement, so as more justly to apportion the pecuniary charges to be incurred and levied under the name of poor-rates.” Mr. Lucas suggested a particular scheme of settlement, by which he conceived most of the evils attaching to the system as hitherto practised might be avoided; but his statement of its nature and probable operation was not very intelligible, and his motion was negatived, after some discussion of the subject, by a majority of one hundred and twenty against sixty-eight. The bill did not proceed beyond this stage of its progress, in consequence of the demise of the crown.

IRISH TITHE QUESTION.

{WILLIAM IV. 1836—1837}

Another cardinal point of Irish policy remaining to be settled, as pointed out to the consideration of parliament in the speech from the throne, was the tithe question. This subject was brought forward in the house of commons on the 1st of May by Lord Morpeth, who, in introducing it, said, that it was the fifth measure which had been brought forward in the last three years for the adjustment of Irish tithes. His present plan was this. He proposed to deduct thirty per cent, from the tithe composition, so as to make a rent-charge on the owner of the first estate of inheritance, in the proportion of £70 to every £100 of the tithe. By the bill of last year power was given to the commissioners of woods and forests to collect the rent-charge; but this was thought to make the clergy too dependant on the officers of government, and they were, therefore, now allowed to collect it for themselves. The provisions of former bills for the revising or reopening of compositions were to be reserved. With respect to the regulation of the incomes of the various benefices, Lord Morpeth proposed to adopt the scale of last session, as recommended by Lord Stanley, with the exception of the minimum of £300, which Lord Stanley had taken as the lowest point of reduction to which the clerical income should be liable. The most novel provision proposed was that which went to apply a portion of the clergyman’s income to the purposes of general education. Lord Morpeth observed, that by a statute, the 15th of the 28th of Henry III., it was enacted, that “every incumbent in each parish in Ireland should keep or cause to be kept within his parish, a school to learn English; and that every archbishop, bishop, &c., at the time of his induction should take a corporal oath, that, being so admitted or inducted, he shall to his best endeavour himself teach the English tongue to all that are under his rule and governance.” Penalties were laid both on the bishop and clergyman for the breach of this statute; and the oath imposed by the act was taken by all rectors and vicars. The question was, continued Lord Morpeth, had this obligation been complied with? There were 2400 parishes in Ireland; and it appeared from the report of the commissioners of inquiry into Irish education, there were only seven hundred and eighty-two schools, the number of benefices being 1242, and the amount of the contributions of the clergy £3299. It appeared from that report, indeed, that, though there were many benefices in which there was no school, yet the act of Henry VIII. was sufficiently complied with by the annual payment of forty-shillings to a schoolmaster. Attempts had been made to revise the act in 1767, and again in the year 1806; but these were abandoned. Lord Morpeth now proposed to raise a fixed rate of ten per cent, upon the ecclesiastical revenues of Ireland, including the incomes of the dignitaries of the church as well as of the parochial clergy; to take effect not on the present holders, but on their successors. The plan of education which he proposed was not to be confined to the teaching of the English language only; it was to combine instruction in letters, lessons of morality and religion, and that upon a national system, comprehending all sects and denominations. Lord Morpeth, however, did not, he said, intend to propose resolutions which would call upon the house to pledge themselves to the whole of his plan; he contented himself for the present with moving, “That it is expedient to commute the tithes of Ireland into a rent-charge, payable by the first estate of inheritance, and to make further provision for the better regulation of ecclesiastical duties.” The resolution was adopted without comment from either side of the house; but when the bill founded on Lord Morpeth’s resolutions was read a second time, June 9th, Mr. Sharman Crawford opposed it as wholly inadequate to the wants of the people of Ireland. He moved that the bill be read a second time that day six months; but on a division his motion was rejected by two hundred and twenty-nine against fourteen. The decision on the clause for taking livings was deferred, and nothing further was done on this question, the death of the king on the 20th of June precluding all further consideration of it.

QUESTION OF CHURCH-RATES.

Government had for some time been occupied in framing a scheme for the arrangement of the question of church-rates. On the 3rd of March the chancellor of the exchequer brought this subject before the house of commons, by moving that the house should resolve itself into a committee for its discussion. In his speech Mr. Rice first attempted to prove that the existing system could not be maintained. He remarked:—“By the law as it stood at present any vestry has the power of refusing its assent to a church-rate. Can it then be said there is, in fact, any fixed or satisfactory mode of providing for the maintenance of the churches of the establishment? Not only have they the power of refusing their assent, but this power has been frequently exercised. In consequence of the contests that took place in Sheffield on the subject, up to the year 1818, no rate has existed there since. In Manchester, in 1833, a poll took place on a rate, which was lost by a majority of one out of six or seven thousand votes. It is true the majority was set aside on a scrutiny; but it has not been ventured to collect the rate. In 1834 and 1835 the same scenes took place; large majorities were polled against the rates; those majorities were, on a scrutiny, declared to be minorities; but the churchwardens did not dare to act on their decision, or levy the rate that had been assessed. Can, or ought,” asked Mr. Bice, “this state of things to continue? If you depend upon the church-rate for the maintenance of the church, can you depend upon the present state of the law to enable you to enforce that payment? It is not sufficient to assert that the law must be strengthened; if you wish to maintain such a proposition, you must carry the house of commons with you. Can you do so? I confess I should like to see, not the person, but the party, however combined in force or numbers, who could come down to this house and ask of parliament to grant additional power for enforcing the payment of church-rates. They would soon find that they miscalculate the character both of the legislature and of the people whom it represents.” Having thus stated his grievance, Mr. Bice considered the remedy. He expressed his decided objection to the voluntary system; when he could be satisfied that the army and navy could be supported, or the administration of justice provided for on the voluntary principle, then, and not till then, would he apply it to the church. He also objected to a distinctive tax on the members of the established church, to the raising of a fund from pew-rents, and to a graduated impost on the benefices of the clergy. He further objected to the proposition brought forward by Lord Althorp; namely, that a sum of £250,000 should be voted by parliament, for the purpose of maintaining the fabric of the church. His plan would be different from all these propositions. He proposed to take the whole property of the bishops, deans, and chapters out of the hands of those dignitaries, and to vest them in the hands of a commission, under whose improved system of management it was calculated that, after paying to their full present amount all existing incomes, a sum not less than £250,000 might be saved and applied to the purposes of church-rates. He proposed that there should be eleven commissioners; five of high ecclesiastical rank; three high officers of state; and three paid members of the board. He further proposed that in all cases where pew-rents had been received, or where they could be justly demanded from the rich, the proceeds should be collected, and placed, in the first instance, under the control of a parochial committee, who should be required in ordinary cases to apportion one-fifth of the whole space in the church to free seats for the poor; in the churches built under the church building act, one-third; the surplus to be handed over to the commissioners. The sums received by the commissioners were to be paid to the ecclesiastical commission, to be applied by them to their specific objects. All visitation fees, and fees on swearing in churchwardens, were to be abolished; by which regulation it was stated a saving of £180,000 a year would be effected. A short and desultory conversation took place; in the course of which the liberal members expressed themselves satisfied with the proposition, while those on the other side of the house intimated their distrust of the principles of the measure.

The friends of the church soon sounded an alarm upon this subject. Three days after Mr. Rice had made his statement, a meeting of fifteen bishops took place at Lambeth Palace; and they came to an unanimous resolution in disapprobation of the bill. The same evening the Archbishop of Canterbury, on presenting some petitions against the abolition of church-rates, expressed his feelings on the subject to the house of lords. The principle of the bill was so unkind to the church, he said, and so mischievous in its effects, that he would never give his assent to its becoming law. This protest raised the indignation of Lord Melbourne. He heard this expression of opinion on the part of the most reverend prelate with sorrow and concern, not less on account of the effect which it would have on the success of the measure, than with reference to the interests of the church itself. He would put it, he said, to the archbishop, whether there was not something of undue haste and precipitation in the course which he had adopted; and whether he was not put forward by those who had more guile and deeper designs than himself, in order that his expressed opinions might affect the decision of the question in another place? He thought it would have been more decent if the most reverend prelate had waited for the regular time for the discussion of the matter, and not have thus precipitately announced his intentions with respect to it. He learned with affliction that he should have the most reverend prelate and his brethren against him on this measure; but this would not alter his course: considering it as just in itself, advantageous to the church, and beneficial to the community, he should persevere in urging it upon parliament.

The house of commons went into committee upon the resolutions of Mr. Rice on the 13th March. The discussion was opened by Sir Robert Peel in opposition. Lord Howick contented himself with replying on one or two points in the financial criticisms of Sir Robert Peel. He was convinced, he said, that the property of the church in land and houses was much greater than was reported by the bishops and chapters, and was greatly improvable under a better management; and he enlarged upon the evils of the present system, and the absolute necessity of removing them for the sake of the church. A discussion followed which lasted several nights. On a division the resolution was carried by a majority of two hundred and seventy-three against two hundred and fifty.

This was a small majority on a question which involved little more than than the taking of the plan into consideration; ministers, indeed, were evidently dissatisfied with the reception of their measure, for they did not seem inclined to urge it through the house. Nearly two months elapsed before the subject was renewed by them: a delay which was made a matter of reproach to the government by some of its supporters without doors, as implying an acknowledgment of failure on the part of the authors of the scheme. The second reading of the resolutions was moved on the 22nd of May. An amendment was moved by Mr. A. Johnstone to this effect: “That it is the opinion of this house that funds may be derived from an improved mode, of management of church lands, and that these funds should be applied to religious instruction within the established church, where the same may be found deficient, in proportion to the existing population.” Messrs. Baines, Hardy, Borthwick, and Horace Twiss, all spoke against the measure. Sir Francis Burdett expressed his regret that he was compelled to act against his former associates in politics, but he could not support the measure. Mr. Shiel endeavoured to make the honourable baronet refute himself by quoting extracts from his former speeches on the same subject. He spoke, however, of the honourable baronet in terms of the highest respect, as “a venerable relic of a temple dedicated to freedom, though ill-omened birds now built their nests and found shelter in that once noble edifice.” On the second night of the debate the bill was supported by Messrs. Brotherton and Charles Buller. Mr. Johnstone withdrew his amendment; and on a division the original resolution was carried by a majority of five only, the numbers being two hundred and eighty-seven against two hundred and eighty-two. This division was a death-blow to the bill: ministers did not even attempt to urge it further in the house of commons. They were still disposed, however, to follow up the inquiries which had been suggested, into the present method of holding and leasing the property belonging to the bishops and chapters. On the 13th of June, Lord John Russell moved a committee “to inquire into this subject, with a view to ascertain the probable amount of any increased value which might be obtained by an improved management, with a due consideration of the interests of the established church, and of the present leases of such property.” This motion was carried by a majority of three hundred and nineteen against two hundred and thirty-six, although it was opposed both by the church party and by honourable members on the part of dissenters. Mr. Coulburn moved a resolution to be added to the original motion, pledging the house to a specific appropriation of any increased revenue derivable from church lands, to the extension of religious instruction by ministers of the establishment. This was lost, but it was only by a majority of two hundred and ninety-one against two hundred and sixty-five. On the other hand, an amendment moved by Mr. Harvey, for the abolition of church-rates altogether, was negatived by an overwhelming majority of four hundred and eighty-nine against fifty-eight. These divisions possessed some interest, as indicative of the different shades of opinion which prevailed in the house on matters relating to the established church.

THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.

On the opening of the first session of this parliament, Sir Robert Peel had made the deficient means of pastoral superintendence in the church of Scotland, the matter of a recommendation from the crown to the parliament. His government did not exist long enough in power to carry these recommendations into effect, and their successors were supposed to be adverse to the subject. On being pressed, however, they consented to the appointment of a commission, which should make inquiry into the whole of it, and report the same to parliament. The first report of this commission was not made till February of the present year, and then government appeared to take no notice of it. Under these circumstances Sir William Rae moved, on the 5th of May, that the “report should be taken into immediate consideration, for the purpose of remedying the evils acknowledged to exist within the district to which it refers, by extending the means of religious instruction and pastoral superintendence furnished by the established church of Scotland, and rendering them available to all classes of the community.” This motion embarrassed government. Lord John Russell said that the general assembly of the Scottish church was about to assemble within a few days, and no doubt it was desired that they should have the ministers’ refusal to consent to this motion, to allege as a presumption of their indifference to the interests of the establishment. He objected to the motion, only on the ground that they had not yet sufficient information on the subject to enable them to deal with it satisfactorily. The motion was opposed by Messrs. Horsman and Oillon on more general grounds; and on a division the order of the day, which was moved by Lord John Russell, was carried by two hundred and seventeen against one hundred and seventy-six: Sir William Rae’s resolutions, therefore, were negatived by a majority of forty-one.

NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES.

Within the first week of this session, the notice-book of the house of commons presented the announcement of motions for various “organic changes” in our constitution. Mr. Grote gave notice of his annual proposition of vote by ballot; Sir William Molesworth announced his intention of moving a committee on peerage reform; Mr. Tennyson D’Eyncourt promised to introduce a bill for the repeal of the Septennial Act; Mr. Hume gave notice for the extension of the parliamentary suffrage to all householders; Mr. Duncombe, of another for the repeal of the rate-paying clauses in the reform bill; Mr. Ewart, one of an address to the crown for the appointment of a minister of education; Mr. Roebuck, of a bill for the establishment of a system of national education; and Mr. Clay, a motion for the repeal of the corn-laws.

The motion for the ballot took place on the 7th of March. Mr. Grote’s speech on this occasion contained many specious arguments, and it appears to have had a great effect upon the house. His motion was seconded by Mr. Hodges, and supported by Dr. Lushington and Mr. Charles Buller. The chancellor of the exchequer opposed the motion. He had as much right as any man to complain of the effects of undue influence and intimidation at his election at Cambridge: but he doubted whether the ballot would prove a remedy for the evil. He thought the only way was to let in public opinion upon the acts and conduct of individuals abusing their power. On a division, the motion was negatived by a majority of two hundred and sixty-seven against one hundred and fifty-five.

Another motion, referring to the exercise or regulation of the parliamentary franchise, was that of Sir William Molesworth, for leave to bring in a bill to abolish the property qualification of members of parliament, which, after a brief discussion, was negatived. The other notice which Sir William had given for a committee on peerage reform was not followed up. The only motion relating to this subject was introduced by Mr. Charles Lushington, who, on the 16th February, moved for leave to bring in a bill for the expulsion of bishops from the house of peers, on the ground that the sitting of bishops in parliament was unfavourable in its operation to the general interests of the Christian religion in this country, and tended to alienate the affections of the people from the established church. This motion was decidedly opposed by Lord John Russell, as introducing a change into one of the most ancient portions of the British constitution. It was a motion not to amend, but to destroy a part of our institutions. And where would such changes stop? The conservative party seemed content to leave this question to be debated between the two parties of their opponents; but when Mr. Buller made some remarks on their silence, Sir Robert Peel declared that if any unpopularity attended resistance to the motion, he was willing to put in a distinct claim for his share. He feared he should not benefit Lord John Russell by his compliments; but he would say that he had never heard a speech delivered in a more manly tone than the noble lord’s, or one that did more credit to his judgment and abilities. On a division, the motion was lost by a majority of one hundred and ninety-seven against ninety-two.

Another motion connected with the reform of the house of lords was brought forward on the 9th of May, by Mr. Thomas Duncombe. He moved by way of resolution, “That the practice of any deliberative assembly deciding by proxy upon the rejection or adoption of legislative enactments is so incompatible with every principle of justice and reason, that its continuance is daily becoming a source of serious and well-founded complaint among all classes of his majesty’s subjects.” This resolution went, therefore, to abolish the right of peers to vote by proxy. Mr. Duncombe observed, that after the house should have affirmed that resolution, he would move, “That a message be sent to the house of lords, requesting a conference, at which the foregoing resolution might be communicated. Lord Stanley and Sir Robert Peel met Mr. Duncombe’s arguments on the subject, by endeavouring to show that if voting by proxy was absurd, the custom of pairing off in the commons, or of coming in to vote at the division without having heard a syllable of the debate, was open to the same objection.” Sir Robert went so for as to parody Mr. Duncombe’s resolution, by drawing up a similar one against the practice of pairing; and he concluded by recommending that they should take the mote out of their own eye before they made any attempt to extract the mote out of that of another. On a division, the motion was negatived by one hundred and twenty-nine against eighty-one.

Mr. Thomas Duncombe’s motion on the subject of the rate-paying clauses of the reform bill was disposed of in a similar manner. He brought this forward on the 9th of March, by moving for leave to bring in a bill for the repeal of those clauses. Mr. Duncombe made no prefatory observations; on which, the chancellor of the exchequer remarked, that on so grave a motion he thought it much better that argument should precede rather than follow the introduction of the bill. Mr. Duncombe then said, that it was his conviction that the clauses in question operated materially to diminish the number of voters throughout the country. It was promised that the reform act should add half a million to the amount of electors, whereas it did not give more than three hundred thousand. The great reason for this was the want of punctuality in the payment of rates and taxes, and the partiality shown by collectors. The chancellor of the exchequer replied, that the principle on which the clause was founded was one of the oldest in the constitution; namely, that no man should enjoy civil rights who did not discharge his civil obligations. If there was any unfairness in collectors it should be inquired into; they were not appointed by the crown. After a few words from Mr. Wakley in support of the motion, and from Mr. Pease, who opposed it, the motion was carried by forty-nine against thirty-eight. On the second reading of the bill, however, Lord John Russell moved its postponement for six months, which was carried by one hundred and sixty-six against seventy-three, so that Mr. Duncombe’s success was but transient.